[WEC] Porsche Prototype Discussion

[TF110]

Another video
http://youtu.be/YUlWQG0nGGU

[deggis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKZN0H5ODpw

[chernaudi]

One 2016 rule change that's been confirmed is that the ACO/FIA want to limit instant power release from engine/hybrid system combined to be around 1000bhp.

This is clearly aimed at Porsche and Toyota to keep them from using their 8MJ hybrid systems (and maybe Audi with their 6MJ system next year) as an instant full-time go faster button and gearing them to use the hybrids to boost fuel mileage.

I'd also expect a ruling that either bans, restricts or perhaps even legalizes Porsche rear bodywork winglets AKA wheel arch extensions.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

One 2016 rule change that's been confirmed is that the ACO/FIA want to limit instant power release from engine/hybrid system combined to be around 1000bhp.

This is clearly aimed at Porsche and Toyota to keep them from using their 8MJ hybrid systems (and maybe Audi with their 6MJ system next year) as an instant full-time go faster button and gearing them to use the hybrids to boost fuel mileage.

I'd also expect a ruling that either bans, restricts or perhaps even legalizes Porsche rear bodywork winglets AKA wheel arch extensions.

I am surprised by this 1000bhp-limit. What's fundamentally wrong with having a combined engine + hybrid power in excess of 1000bhp under the current fuel-flow energy-restricted formula ?

[Spyderman]

I'm very disappointed, although not surprised. It was only a question of time before the urge to kill off the goose that laid the golden eggs became too much to resist.
The only way to eventually stop this nonsense, is to hold those that make these decision accountable. When the series eventually dies out, they should be firmly shown the door. Repeating the same things over and over and expecting a different outcome is the very definition of insanity.
Those of us that a critics fully understand that there is a balancing act to undertake (with regulations), but as usual, they take all the "balancing" out of the act.

[MyNameIsNigel]

An interesting report from motorsport-total.com suggesting that Porsche have been asked by the ACO-FIA to make modifications to the rear bodywork section between the Nurburgring and Austin rounds. Even though the original design was duly homologated, the ACO-FIA seemed to have second thoughts about the solution used at the Nurburgring and required some changes before the next race at Austin. According to Hitzinger, the necessary changes have not however led to any loss of performance.

I would love to see more detailed comparison shots between the Nurburgring and Austin solutions.

In view of Hitzinger admissions, I do further wonder if the ACO-FIA are ultimately satisfied with the changes made by Porsche.

[deggis]

Finally Bozzy's Monza video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyXt5PLM1dM

[Victor_RO]

This 1000bhp limit might not be as bad as we think. If they're already boosting to over 1000bhp out of the corners, the peak that is cut off the power curve can be redistributed to a later point on the straight, so they might accelerate a bit more slowly but they'll have more boost available by the end of the straight. Therefore resulting in faster trap speeds. And with longer periods of boost, who knows, we might still see the cars faster (notwithstanding the 10 MJ reduction in energy allowance per lap).

[wolfhound]

Porsche are reported to be waiting on the final F1 calender before deciding on who will replace Hulkenberg at LM. It is likely they will use one of their existing GT drivers after the success of Tandy and Bamber at LM this year.

http://uk.motorsport.com/wec/news/po...le-mans-clash/

[CTD]

Let the next danish Le Mans winner come forth!

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

This 1000bhp limit might not be as bad as we think. If they're already boosting to over 1000bhp out of the corners, the peak that is cut off the power curve can be redistributed to a later point on the straight, so they might accelerate a bit more slowly but they'll have more boost available by the end of the straight. Therefore resulting in faster trap speeds. And with longer periods of boost, who knows, we might still see the cars faster (notwithstanding the 10 MJ reduction in energy allowance per lap).

I'm not sure that holds. In the power-limited case the car would be going a bit slower because it can't use all the energy to accelerate that the current cars can straight away. I could see the same trap speeds with the 1000hp max. cars accelerating all the way down the straight but I would be very surprised to see the cars reaching higher top speeds. However we can never be sure because the energy allocation reduction will slow down the cars overall anyway.

[Artur]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

This 1000bhp limit might not be as bad as we think. If they're already boosting to over 1000bhp out of the corners, the peak that is cut off the power curve can be redistributed to a later point on the straight, so they might accelerate a bit more slowly but they'll have more boost available by the end of the straight. Therefore resulting in faster trap speeds. And with longer periods of boost, who knows, we might still see the cars faster (notwithstanding the 10 MJ reduction in energy allowance per lap).

The way I understand it, they will not go faster and very likely won't reach higher top speeds either.

This is just an "F1-like" bullshit(sorry for the terminology) kind of rule that will just take WEC one step closer to Uncle Bernie's crappy series.

Right now, each team deploys it's available energy in the most efficient way, ie, the way that will give the fastest laptime. This will vary from one circuit layout to another.

Releasing a bigger power during a shorter period is likely more efficient than releasing a smaller power for longer(the top speed will be solely on ICE power, anyway. The advantage is to get closer to that top speed as rapidly as one can) One thing I know for sure is that releasing extra power when on higher speeds is much less efficient because big parts gets "wasted" by the huge drag values

In order for a car like Bugatti to reach a few dozens of extra top speed, they needed something like 400HP of additional power as, at ~400kmh, drag is immense and substantial more power is required to overcome it.

Originally Posted by J Jay

However we can never be sure because the energy allocation reduction will slow down the cars overall anyway.

What energy allocation reduction?

Can't FIA/ACO just leave what is working alone? Audi technical people already made clear that they don't want changes and stated things are good as they currently are.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Artur

What energy allocation reduction?

Can't FIA/ACO just leave what is working alone? Audi technical people already made clear that they don't want changes and stated things are good as they currently are.

The 10MJ decrease in aloowed energy per lap of LM (or equivalent), as Victor_RO mentioned in his post. I think this was deemed insufficient to slow down the cars (as the factories would absorb this reduction in their development) so the 1000hp limit was introduced.

Which as you've pointed out will, rather ironically, decrease the cars efficiency - if they're not able to put the power down when it is most advantageous (i.e. with the least resistive forces to work against), then obviously they are using the energy as effectively as possible.

I wonder if someone (GG?) could put this argument to Neveu/Fillon and see what their reaction is...

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Artur

What energy allocation reduction?

Was already confirmed back in August. Now it was just rubber stamped.

[MyNameIsNigel]

We now appear to have an explanation of the four to five-second advantage that Porsche have in refueling time thanks to Racecar Engineering. Porsche have seemingly used CFD simulations and actual tests with a physical tank provided with a glass window to optimize the fuel flow in the tank, from the refueling hose through the refueling valve, through the tank inlet, and the internals in the tank. This all appears to be fully legal, even though Audi and Toyota claim that this is not within the spirit of the rules, as the refueling valve restrictors had originally been adjusted at the beginning of the season to be within a tenth of a second in terms of refueling times.

Porsche have opened another area of development having a positive impact on track "performance". Let's see if the ACO-FIA will close this possible area of development by introducing stricter rules. I wouldn't mind if this happens.

[MyNameIsNigel]

So, according to autosport the "1000bhp-limit" would only be enforced at LM. Actually, we are not even talking of a "1000bhp-limit" as such, but a limitation of the maximum power output of the ERS to 300kW (approx. 400bhp).

[porman]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

So, according to autosport the "1000bhp-limit" would only be enforced at LM. Actually, we are not even talking of a "1000bhp-limit" as such, but a limitation of the maximum power output of the ERS to 300kW (approx. 400bhp).

Yes indeed! It looks like my rant was just that.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Now, LMP1-H concepts are supposed to be homologated for an entire season, including the ERS. In other words, if the ERS power is capped at 300kW for the 24 hours of LM, this limitation would inherently remain at other tracks due to the necessary homolgation, wouldn't it ?

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Now, LMP1-H concepts are supposed to be homologated for an entire season, including the ERS. In other words, if the ERS power is capped at 300kW for the 24 hours of LM, this limitation would inherently remain at other tracks due to the necessary homolgation, wouldn't it ?

Not necessarily, I don't think there's a restriction on the number of power unit modes the teams have available in their ECUs. And a limit on the electrical output can very easily be managed through a different mapping in the ECU, so I really don't see a problem in the teams setting up their hybrid boost differently at each track. It can probably be all done through the ECU's software.

[Adam43]

The concept remains the same; it is just how the power is deployed and if the rule makers say it is OK to do one thing at one circuit and another a different one then I suspect they'll be fine! Like they already are with the total energy coefficient they already have.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

We now appear to have an explanation of the four to five-second advantage that Porsche have in refueling time thanks to Racecar Engineering. Porsche have seemingly used CFD simulations and actual tests with a physical tank provided with a glass window to optimize the fuel flow in the tank, from the refueling hose through the refueling valve, through the tank inlet, and the internals in the tank. This all appears to be fully legal, even though Audi and Toyota claim that this is not within the spirit of the rules, as the refueling valve restrictors had originally been adjusted at the beginning of the season to be within a tenth of a second in terms of refueling times.

Porsche have opened another area of development having a positive impact on track "performance". Let's see if the ACO-FIA will close this possible area of development by introducing stricter rules. I wouldn't mind if this happens.

One can say why have the refueling rig restirctor when someone like Porsche can sort of circumvent them by messing around with the refueling buckeye on the car? Technically, I thought that such things were deemed illegal in most series after the F1 pit fires in 1994. And that such rules were implied to be for both the refueling rig and the refueling buckeye receptical.

I'd expect that as possibly as soon as the cars are unloaded at Fuji that Porsche will be asked to change the refueling buckeyes out of the car with standard ones, or the ACO and, citing "extraordinary circumstances", adjust Porsche's refueling rig restrictor to compensate.

It's bad enough that they screwed with those things to get a head of Audi, but if they're refueling about 5 seconds faster than Toyota and they're doing this in the face of the work that the ACO did before the season started to make sure refueling times were roughly equal, I'd expect some "punishment" to be coming.

Or could this be the amendment to the technical regs regarding refueling for the 2016 ACO/FIA WEC regulations?

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

One can say why have the refueling rig restirctor when someone like Porsche can sort of circumvent them by messing around with the refueling buckeye on the car? Technically, I thought that such things were deemed illegal in most series after the F1 pit fires in 1994. And that such rules were implied to be for both the refueling rig and the refueling buckeye receptical.

I'd expect that as possibly as soon as the cars are unloaded at Fuji that Porsche will be asked to change the refueling buckeyes out of the car with standard ones, or the ACO and, citing "extraordinary circumstances", adjust Porsche's refueling rig restrictor to compensate.

It's bad enough that they screwed with those things to get a head of Audi, but if they're refueling about 5 seconds faster than Toyota and they're doing this in the face of the work that the ACO did before the season started to make sure refueling times were roughly equal, I'd expect some "punishment" to be coming.

Or could this be the amendment to the technical regs regarding refueling for the 2016 ACO/FIA WEC regulations?

I haven't read the article , but according to what MyNameisNigel posted this all appears to be fully legal, so Porsche is not doing anything other than pushing the rules to the limit without breaking them. That Audi and Toyota did not take the initiative to do this is really their own problem. Now that they know how Porsche did it, they are free to do the same thing. As long as it is legal, there really is no issue here.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

Not necessarily, I don't think there's a restriction on the number of power unit modes the teams have available in their ECUs. And a limit on the electrical output can very easily be managed through a different mapping in the ECU, so I really don't see a problem in the teams setting up their hybrid boost differently at each track. It can probably be all done through the ECU's software.

Originally Posted by Adam43

The concept remains the same; it is just how the power is deployed and if the rule makers say it is OK to do one thing at one circuit and another a different one then I suspect they'll be fine! Like they already are with the total energy coefficient they already have.

It was my understanding that the ERS specifications (including ERS power) had to be defined once for the entire season as part of the homologation process and that the only variable in the equation was the amount of energy deployed at each track or, in other words, the maximum time during which the ERS is allowed to release energy at the given ERS power.

I am a bit surprised to hear that it would basically be allowed to adjust the ERS power depending on the track characteristics. This is somewhat inconsistent with declarations from the manufacturers suggesting that a compromise had to be found between LM and the other WEC tracks, namely that an ERS designed for 6MJ or 8MJ at LM would not necassarily be capable of harvesting and releasing the maximum amount of energy allowed by the rules at the other FIA-WEC tracks. I understood this as implying that a compromise had to be found in terms of ERS power characteristics.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

I haven't read the article , but according to what MyNameisNigel posted this all appears to be fully legal, so Porsche is not doing anything other than pushing the rules to the limit without breaking them. That Audi and Toyota did not take the initiative to do this is really their own problem. Now that they know how Porsche did it, they are free to do the same thing. As long as it is legal, there really is no issue here.

It is indeed deemed legal (until the ACO-FIA change their mind...) and neither Audi nor Toyota are challenging the legality of the design. They are just frustrated by the fact that there appeared to exist some commitment to ensure equivalence in the refueling times at the beginning of the season and that Porsche have now followed a different route.

It's fully legal, but not necessarily very fair. This area of development could be left open, but I believe that the ACO-FIA would be well advised to impose stricter rules, possibly a fully standardized refueling system, all the way through to the tank internals.

[Spyderman]

I dont. Have Audi and Toyota come up with their own (legal) versions. No need to penalize the hard working and innovators.